ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Gender-specific differences in central blood pressure and optimal target blood pressure based on the prediction of cardiovascular events.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is My Study Sex or Is it Gender?Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hypertension (HBP) is a common disease among both men and women. Central blood pressure (CBP) is a method of evaluating aorta pressure that can assess the intrinsic BP of an individual patient that more closely correlates with cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes than peripheral BP parameters. We evaluated gender-specific differences in CBP and optimal target BP based on a composite outcome of CVD, heart failure (HF), and hypertensive complications in patients with HBP. Method: Patients were enrolled from June 2011 to December 2015 and were followed through December 2019. CBP was measured using radial tonometry. The primary endpoint was a composite outcome. Result: The median follow-up period for enrolled patients was 6.5 years. Out of a total of 2,115 patients with an average age of 57.9 ± 13.6 years, 266 patients (12.6%) had events of primary end points during the follow-up period. There was no difference in the lowest BP level between men and women in the incidence of CVD. Among the women (49.6%), 78.1% were postmenopausal. In a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, CBP and systolic BP showed an increase in risk of 10 and 11%, respectively, with every 10 mmHg increase, and there was a similar trend of 12 and 13%, respectively, in postmenopausal women. However, PP showed an increase in risk of about 2% every 10 mmHg increase, but a tendency to increase risk by 19% in postmenopausal women. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that postmenopausal women will continue to show increased risk for CVD at BP higher than the optimal level. Conversely, there was no increase in CV risk due to menopause at BP values below the optimal level. Therefore, well-controlled BP is more important in postmenopausal women.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.